Ministry of Justice >> Courts >> Youth Court >> Youth Court Decisions >> Case Summary

Youth Court Decisions

Police v James (1991) 8 FRNZ 628

Case summary provided by BROOKERS

Name: Police v James (A Young Person)
Reported: (1991) 8 FRNZ 628
File number: CRN 1248012425/91
Date: 24 June 1991
Court: Youth Court
Location: Otahuhu
Judge: Harvey DCJ
Charge: Unlawful Taking of a Motor Vehicle; Wounding Owner of a Motor Vehicle
CYPF no: s276
Key Title: Jurisdiction of the Youth Court - s276 offer/election
Brooker's Summary:

Children, young persons, and their families - Youth justice - Jurisdiction - Exercise of discretion to allow case to remain in Youth Court - Factors to be considered - Public interest to be taken in account - Balancing of public interest factors - Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act, ss 4(f), 5, 208, 276, 283, 284; Children and Young Persons Act 1974, s 35(2); Criminal Justice Act 1985, ss 5, 6.

James, 15, was charged indictably with the intent to commit a crime, namely, the unlawful taking of a motor vehicle, and in the course of it, wounding the owner of the motor vehicle. He has no previous offences. James has had the advantages of a good upbringing, a caring family, and a good education which is continuing. He indicated that he wished to plead guilty to the charge and asked to be dealt with in the Youth Court under s 276 Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989. The family group conference recommended that the matter remain in the Youth Court, and that recommendation is not opposed by the police.

Held, young person to be dealt with in the Youth Court:

(1) In exercising the discretion under s 276, the following factors must be taken into account:

(a) The nature of the offence;

(b) The seriousness of the offending and the part played by the young person in the offending;

(d) The principle that a young offender should be held accountable and accept responsibility for his behaviour;

(e) The interests of the young person in being dealt with under the rehabilitative provisions of the Act;

(f) The forum which is likely to be able to hear the case soonest;

(g) The young person's age in relation to the period for which rehabilitative measures under the Act will remain available;

(h) The personal history, social circumstances, and personal characteristics of the young person (s 284(b));

(i) The attitude of the young person towards the offence (s 284(c));

(j) The response by the family, the measures that they have taken, and the recommendations of the family group conference (s 284(d), (e), and (h));

(k) The effect on the victim and the need for reparation (s 284(f));

(l) Any previous offences (s 284(g));

(m) The public interest.[(1991) 8 FRNZ 628, 629]

(2) In determining how the public interest is best to be served, the long-term consequences for the offender must be considered where appropriate, as well as the more immediate consequences, and the interests of the victim must be taken into account.

(3) Taking into account all the above factors, the machinery that exists in the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 can be more effectively used than the rather limited resources available in the Criminal Justice Act 1985 which could have a potentially more destructive effect upon this young person in the long term than is justified, either in the interests of punishment or of society.

Cases referred to

Koteka v Police 14/5/91, Barker J, HC Auckland AP95/91
Police v M [1990] DCR 544
Police v Richard and R and S 12/6/90, Judge Lee, YC Upper Hutt CRN9278003995; CRN278003996; CRN278004028
Police v Tai (a young person) (1991) 8 FRNZ 613
R v Dale 7/9/89, Holland J, HC Christchurch S51/89
R v M [1986] 2 NZLR 172
R v Police (1990) 6 FRNZ 538
R v Pora 14/9/90, Gault J, HC Auckland S98/90

Hearing

This matter deals with the question of whether the young person concerned should be given the opportunity under s 276 Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 to plead guilty and to be dealt with in the Youth Court.

The facts appear from the judgment.